Notre Dame Cathedral is burning

[Dotini]

This medieval cathedral, even more than the greatest castle, is a monument of Western civilization to the faded history and checkered glories of the passing centuries.

The church hosted the coronations, weddings and funerals of world leaders. England’s Henry VI was crowned king of France there; Mary, Queen of Scots married the Dauphin Francis, Francis II of France there; the coronation of Napoleon and Josephine was held there; the funeral of Charles de Gaulle was held there.

But the question is, should modern enlightened society spend billions on preserving religious, patriarchal, elitist relics, or try to bring food, water and electricity to the two billion human souls who lack the very basics of what civilization has to offer?

 

[Dennisch]

 

[PzR Slim]

But the question is, should modern enlightened society spend billions on preserving religious, patriarchal, elitist relics, or try to bring food, water and electricity to the two billion human souls who lack the very basics of what civilization has to offer?

Pretty easy to answer that. Modern enlightened society, should and has the means to do both. The question to answer is, why don't we?

 

[kikie]

We make our own priorities.

For example, a quick search tells me you have posted 103 times in the Flat Earth thread.
I could say that you have your priorities wrong. But they're your priorities, so I don't.

A thread like the flat earth that is a joke, a conspiracy has nothing to do with priorities. If you say that I have got my priorities wrong, you need to look up de definition of priority. For instance,> something given or meriting attention before competing alternatives. In case of the flat earth theory there are no alternatives except in the mind of delusional people. In case of the Notre Dame, there is. As I said in my previous post, it was the way the news was brought and the interviews. Mind you, I understand the catastrophe of this piece of French culture being destroyed by fire and that it is important to many, many people on this planet but for French billionaires to raise hundreds of millions of Euros to restore the Notre Dame is a clear case of priorities. And yes, it was said and I read it that they are going to raise that huge amount of money while there are so many people in France that could use that kind of money.

What do you expect? Our brain hasn't evolved from the "nomadic tribe of 50 people" stage. We only care about what's close to us. And we usually define "close" as "sharing the same language" (or rather, the same logos).

Indeed. It seems that my brain has evolved differently and in a wrong way.

To be honest it sounds like the problem lies with you rather than them.

Every nation has a building, monument, piece of art or other item that means nothing to others that is somehow imprinted on that nations psyche. And Notre-Dame is one of those buildings for France. For example, the distance to every point in France is measured from there. It's literally Km 0 for the nation.

I disagree completely. What I was talking about has nothing to do with the importance of the building but the fact that they can raise money for a building while others in France are starving, dying etc ... .

No it's not. For someone to donate to a cause, especially huge Scrooge McDuck piles of money, it usually has to be something they actually care about. Starving babies in Africa is usually pretty far down that list for any people living in developed nations, "it's just a building" or not.


It is somewhat amusing that no one wanted to front the money before when it was just being renovated for a fraction of the cost, but then it wasn't splashed across the news for 24 hours for going up in flames as a huge disaster at that point.

I'm not talking about babies in Africa (there is enough third world development aid)! I'm talking about their own people (French citizens) maybe even family (this is of course something I can't know but it is possible). They should care about their fellow Frenchmen and family and them more importantly than a cathedral.



BTW, I visited Notre Dame when I was 17. My mother wanted to go to find help but to no avail (she died anyway). I'm going to say it again that I know the importance of the symbology of the Notre Dame and I have nothing against this Cathedral (it is a very beautiful cathedral and a very nice place to visit but the way the people reacted on the news and the fact that hundreds of millions of Euros are going to be raised by French Millionaires is something I don't understand.

If I was a billionaire, I would definitely go and find people personally who really need financial aid and other help. 100% about that.

An example that has nothing to do with this but something to show how I think about life:

Last week I found out that a friend (from the fitness) has gotten himself in trouble financially. He wants to buy an apartment but due to a fault of the real estate agent he can't get a loan and is going to lose €11,000 in the process. I immediately made an appointment with my bank without him telling him first because I didn't want to give him false hope (that was yesterday at 11:30h) to see if I was able and capable to lend him €15,000 so he could get his loan and does not lose the apartment and his € 11,000.
Turns out that it is not necessary because he was able to loan the rest of the money from family.
That is my priority, to help people even though I could potentially get myself in trouble. Probably stupid of me but that is who I'm.


I have nothing against the restoration itself. It would be ashame not the restore it but that French billionaires come to the resque with their money, while others need it, is beyond me. Sorry if that is my sentiment but this is who I'm and I'm not going to apologize myself for being this way.

 

[Dotini]

Pretty easy to answer that. Modern enlightened society, should and has the means to do both. The question to answer is, why don't we?

Modern secular society does not have the ability to do both without going into debt, and without supporting the corrupt, decadent and perverted institution the Catholic Church has become.

 

[PzR Slim]

I disagree completely. What I was talking about has nothing to do with the importance of the building but the fact that they can raise money for a building while others in France are starving, dying etc

How do you know that the same people you were so disgusted with also don't contribute to the other causes you speak of?

 

[girabyt3]

So, how long do you guys think will it take to France to restore Quasimodo's place??

I will guess 5 years

 

[kikie]

How do you know that the same people you were so disgusted with also don't contribute to the other causes you speak of?

Touché. You got me there. I didn't think of that. That could be possible indeed. I feel ashamed now.
You got a like from me for bursting my bubble. I'm gonna shut up now.

So, how long do you guys think will it take to France to restore Quasimodo's place??

I will guess 5 years

They said on the news it will take between 10 to 20 years. The example that they gave was that every wooden beam has to be cut, constructed and everything has to be build from the ground up.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, how long do you guys think will it take to France to restore Quasimodo's place??

Several years for the permanent solution to be in place, Several weeks to remove the scaffolding, hopefully only days to protect the interior against rain. It's difficult to get tall cranes around the site and, if space could be found, they'd likely need piled bases. Restoration and scaffolding removal is going to have to be done by crane, I think.

 

[PzR Slim]

Modern secular society does not have the ability to do both without going into debt, and without supporting the corrupt, decadent and perverted institution the Catholic Church has become.

Nah, I don't buy that. We have the means to end all the injustice in the world just not the collective will.

Touché. You got me there. I didn't think of that. That could be possible indeed. I feel ashamed now.

Honestly, there is no need to be ashamed. I do agree with a lot of what you wrote, I was just offering a different point of view.

 

[kikie]

Nah, I don't buy that. We have the means to end all the injustice in the world just not the collective will.



Honestly, there is no need to be ashamed. I do agree with a lot of what you wrote, I was just offering a different point of view.

Yes, and you are correct. Your point of view is very, very valid! 👍

 

[Hun200kmh]

Modern secular society does not have the ability to do both without going into debt, and without supporting the corrupt, decadent and perverted institution the Catholic Church has become.

What? So, to do both (preserve old relics AND give water and food to billions ) you need to support the Catholic Church? Because if you don't support the Catholic Church you will only preserve old relics?

Uhhhh … ok. Since you're not making any sense and you obviously know how to write I will guess you were just using an excuse to insult the Catholic Church. Go ahead, the Catholic Church can withstand that I'm sure.

 

[Robin]

I read somewhere that France no longer has trees that big to replace the roof like for like. Back in the day there were still ancient Oak forests which had ginormous trees that were large enough to create the length and size of beams required.

I am wondering about the fate of the stained glass windows, apparently the north rose one has survived but the fate of the others is unknown. Those are some of the most irreplaceable items in the building that weren't already removed.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not talking about babies in Africa (there is enough third world development aid)! I'm talking about their own people (French citizens) maybe even family (this is of course something I can't know but it is possible). They should care about their fellow Frenchmen and family and them more importantly than a cathedral.

The wealthy in France pay something like 48% income tax per year to the government. This doesn't include all the other taxes they pay either. And since France has a rather expansive social security system, it seems like the wealthy in France more than pay their fair share to help their fellow Frenchman.

Also, Norte Dame is a source of national pride and tourism dollars for France. By rebuilding Norte Dame, it's only going to help drive more money into the economy because people will travel there to see it. This means they will eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and see other things in Paris too.

 

[ClydeYellow]

So, how long do you guys think will it take to France to restore Quasimodo's place??

I will guess 5 years

Took about 20 years to restore the Chapel of the Holy Shroud here in Turin. I'd say it will take around the same for Notre Dame, although it seems that the stone structure wasn't damaged by the fire, so it may take less (IIRC, in the case of Guarini's Chapel some five years were spent just reopening the old cave from which the marble used in building the original chapel was extracted - it was a terribly thorough and precise restoration).

Modern secular society does not have the ability to do both without going into debt, and without supporting the corrupt, decadent and perverted institution the Catholic Church has become.

For an institution 2000 years old, it's not particularly corrupt or decadent. But then, Americans always fancied themselves a bit of anti-Catholicism, no?

Spoiler

In actuality, the Church gets relatively little support from the various Catholic-majority European states, and most of it comes in the form of exemptions on property taxes, which nine times out of ten are more than justified by the use of said property. And while by looking at the sheer numbers it may look like the Vatican is swimming in gold, the sad truth of it is that most of the wealth of the Church worldwide is locked in hard-to-liquidize assets, with the rent those assets generate hardly ever making its way to Rome.

Regardless of that, the Cathedral is the property of the French state, which - secular or not - has in my opinion an obligation to preserve (and, where necessary, restore) the heritage of the French people for posterity. And it's better to go into debt for this, than for buying some more Rafale fighter-bombers or equipping their riot police with the last "less-than-lethal-but-not-really" gizmo.

 

[Jimlaad43]

I watched a quiz show last night where one of the questions was "How tall is Salisbury Cathedral?". I knew the answer because of these two and their interview

 

[Milouse]

it seems that the stone structure wasn't damaged by the fire

There are two huge holes in the stone "roof", and tons of melted metal (lead) and carbonized wood that collapsed on the rest of it.

 

[Biggles]

Modern secular society does not have the ability to do both without going into debt, and without supporting the corrupt, decadent and perverted institution the Catholic Church has become.

What are they supposed to do? Leave a blackened, decaying carcass in the centre of Paris?

It does appear to have the ability to spend$1,739 Billion US annually on "defence" annually ... so by cutting back on the odd fighter-bomber, "modern secular society" might manage to scrape together the wherewithal to restore one of the most prominent historical examples of humanity's creative genius.

 

[ClydeYellow]

There are two huge holes in the stone "roof", and tons of melted metal (lead) and carbonized wood that collapsed on the rest of it.
View attachment 814709

*wasn't damaged much

The charred rests of the roof & flèche shouldn't be too difficult to remove if the underlying nave isn't too structurally compromised. As for the holes (which I assume were opened by the collapsing spire)... They'll figure something out. But what's important to know at this stage is that the ceiling didn't completely cave, and there was no damage to the supporting walls. From what I understand, the structure is still self-sustaining and in no immediate danger of collapse, which was not at all a given yesterday.

I mean, by the looks of things, it will still be a restoration, rather than a reconstruction.

 

[Danoff]

This medieval cathedral, even more than the greatest castle, is a monument of Western civilization to the faded history and checkered glories of the passing centuries.

The church hosted the coronations, weddings and funerals of world leaders. England’s Henry VI was crowned king of France there; Mary, Queen of Scots married the Dauphin Francis, Francis II of France there; the coronation of Napoleon and Josephine was held there; the funeral of Charles de Gaulle was held there.

But the question is, should modern enlightened society spend billions on preserving religious, patriarchal, elitist relics, or try to bring food, water and electricity to the two billion human souls who lack the very basics of what civilization has to offer?

Pretty easy to answer that. Modern enlightened society, should and has the means to do both. The question to answer is, why don't we?

What are they supposed to do? Leave a blackened, decaying carcass in the centre of Paris?

It does appear to have the ability to spend$1,739 Billion US annually on "defence" annually ... so by cutting back on the odd fighter-bomber, "modern secular society" might manage to scrape together the wherewithal to restore one of the most prominent historical examples of humanity's creative genius.

Is this a public building? Owned by the government? *googles* ah, yes it is owned by the state and guaranteed to the catholic church for use forever. Also it appears that France is having trouble maintaining it.

*also tree'd by Famine on this one

I'm not sure what the US defense budget has to do with France's historical monument budget. Seems like the US should not spend more on defense than it needs to, and so "having money leftover" is not a thing. If it was spending more than it needed to, it should spend less... full stop... no need for any pet projects. And if it was spending less than or exactly as much as it needs to, it has no money leftover... full stop... regardless of pet projects. Especially when those pet projects are not owned by US taxpayers.

This is pretty embarrassing for France. They can't afford to maintain their historical monuments? Calling for help from private donors to keep their history preserved? If they can't afford to maintain it, they should sell it.

 

[Liquid]

For an institution 2000 years old, it's not particularly corrupt or decadent.

 

[Biggles]

I'm not sure what the US defense budget has to do with France's historical monument budget. Seems like the US should not spend more on defense than it needs to, and so "having money leftover" is not a thing. If it was spending more than it needed to, it should spend less... full stop... no need for any pet projects. And if it was spending less than or exactly as much as it needs to, it has no money leftover... full stop... regardless of pet projects. Especially when those pet projects are not owned by US taxpayers.

This is pretty embarrassing for France. They can't afford to maintain their historical monuments? Calling for help from private donors to keep their history preserved? If they can't afford to maintain it, they should sell it.

That's "modern secular society's" global spending on the military.

Who are they going to sell it to ... for what?

 

[baldgye]

For an institution 2000 years old, it's not particularly corrupt or decadent.

Yeah they're pretty sound, humble chaps the old catholic church

Spoiler: Not really tho

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

 

[Danoff]

That's "modern secular society's" global spending on the military.

Like that's a thing.

Who are they going to sell it to ... for what?

It seems like the natural buyer would be the catholic church. Which would be nice because then it wouldn't be the people of France paying to maintain the church's property (or at least property that the church has exclusive rights to use... which is basically the same thing). If the church doesn't want it, great, time to deny them exclusive rights to it and make it a place for the people of France (who are paying for it after all).

It's distasteful, from a US perspective, to see the public fund what is effectively private property. Especially when that property is for a religious institution.

I do want to take a moment to appreciate something that has happened in this thread though. The simultaneous call for the public (other peoples') money to be diverted to private people "in need". And for (other peoples') money to be diverted to (effectively private) monuments. This is pretty much why it's currently in a sad state of repair... the notion that we should not have nice things before everyone has enough food provided to them (by others). It stood for 800 years but during that time, people thought there were more important things than providing to the needy. Now that someone's empty belly is the most important priority we can think of, the historical monument crumbles. What you're seeing is a priority shift.

Anyway, sell it back to the church and let them handle it.

 

[kikie]

A few seconds ago, they said on the Belgian news that French billionaires and Total gathered around €600,000,000 for the restoration of the Notre Dame.
It is possible that the walls are going to crack and cause even more damage.

The wealthy in France pay something like 48% income tax per year to the government. This doesn't include all the other taxes they pay either. And since France has a rather expansive social security system, it seems like the wealthy in France more than pay their fair share to help their fellow Frenchman.

Wrong, it is a kind of wealth tax that they pay to the French government. Do you really believe that the common man has financial advantages due to this tax?
BTW some of these very rich Frenchmen left France to escape this tax. I know of at least one Frenchman who moved to Brussels because he didn't want to give his hard earned cash to the French government. Also they have their wealth deposited parked in tax free paradises.

I'm going to say something I'm absolutely not sure about and can be completely wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if these billionaires get some kind of financial advantages for donating that money (tax reduction perhaps?).

This is more than proof enough that the French are not content with the way things are going in France. And this is not the only protest I have seen in the last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

Also, Norte Dame is a source of national pride and tourism dollars for France. By rebuilding Norte Dame, it's only going to help drive more money into the economy because people will travel there to see it. This means they will eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and see other things in Paris too.

Agreed

But again I have absolutely nothing against the Notre Dame and I have absolutely nothing against the restoration. I was shocked because of how the people reacted to the news. It was like a real living God died. And the money private billionaires are going to invest in the restoration.

I am much more open minded now and not so close minded as this afternoon anymore. Seeing and hearing about the support from all over the world makes me rethink my previous statements.



BTW, it was Lourdes where I, my mother and father went to, not the Notre Dame. Me was wrong again.


I just heard that Trump is going to support France as well (Notre Dame). 👍👍👍👍

 

[ClydeYellow]

As I said, the Church's cashflow is probably far less impressive than you'd think. They could sell some of their properties, but that would take years of legal wrangling (because the vast majority of these properties were either inherited, or bought off with restricted funds in the hands of ad-hoc foundations, etc.), and that's assuming the buyers would line up (which is absolutely true in some cases, absolutely not true in some others). Not to mention that a lot of those properties are in the hands of the Episcopal Conferences of their respective territories - sure, the Pope may order to "sell", but the ECs may spend decades pretending they didn't hear, and the money could get lost in plenty of holes along the way to Rome.

And all the assets that could be mobilized with relative ease (like equity, or gold) are in the hands of the Vatican Bank - which is a private bank located in the Vatican State, over which the Pope has the control any President of any nation has over any private bank in their country (which is why the commission Bergoglio nominated to "investigate possible reforms in the IOR" is a farce).

I was also careful to specify that the Vatican is not too corrupt or decadent "for an institution 2000 years old" - and therefore obsessed with ancient dogmatic traditions and self-preservation at all costs, with a considerable wealth that it can't even properly manage because some of it has been in its portfolio since the 1600s. Doesn't make it less disastrous - but ultimately I don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand, considering the Notre Dame Cathedral is property of the French government.

It's distasteful, from a US perspective, to see the public fund what is effectively private property.

From a US perspective, exactly. The Notre Dame Cathedral was half a millennia old when the US declared their independence.

 

[Danoff]

From a US perspective, exactly. The Notre Dame Cathedral was half a millennia old when the US declared their independence.

Did you know that George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter? Since we're just spouting random facts that have no relevance to the conversation.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I take it is wasn't insured then?

 

[Hun200kmh]

I read the "sell it back to the Church" call and can't avoid finding it funny. Atheism never quite really knows what to do with temples, if they belong to a church they want it for the people if it belongs to the people they want it back to the church.

A bit of history:

In 1793, during the French Revolution, the cathedral was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, and then to the Cult of the Supreme Being. During this time, many of the treasures of the cathedral were either destroyed or plundered. The twenty-eight statues of biblical kings located at the west façade, mistaken for statues of French kings, were beheaded.[24] Many of the heads were found during a 1977 excavation nearby, and are on display at the Musée de Cluny. For a time the Goddess of Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars.[25] The cathedral's great bells escaped being melted down. All of the other large statues on the facade, with the exception of the statue of the Virgin Mary on the portal of the cloister, were destroyed.[8] The cathedral came to be used as a warehouse for the storage of food and other non-religious purposes.[23]

In July 1801, the new ruler, Napoleon Bonaparte, signed an agreement to restore the cathedral to the Church. It was formally transferred on 18 April 1802. It was the setting of Napoleon's coronation as Emperor on 2 December 1804, and of his marriage to Marie-Louise of Austria in 1810.

then …

Under a 1905 law, Notre-Dame de Paris is one of 70 churches in Paris built before that year which are owned by the French state. While the building itself is owned by the state, the Catholic Church is the designated beneficiary, having the exclusive right to use it for religious purposes in perpetuity. The archdiocese is responsible for paying the employees, for security, heating and cleaning, and for ensuring that the cathedral is open free to visitors. The archdiocese does not receive subsidies from the French state.[57]

So, now the call is to return to pre-1793, with full ownership by the Church.

No doubt, such a move would provide @baldgye another picture of another magnificent church to point out how (not) humble the catholic church is.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Did you know that George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter? Since we're just spouting random facts that have no relevance to the conversation.

But the fact that I've stated is relevant. The history of the US is shorter and less complicated - they're a State born in the modern era, with no past to be indebted towards. Easy enough to talk about "separation of church and State", then. But here in old Europe, it's not all that easy. There is "selling Notre Dame back to the Church", because the Church essentially never owned it - the problem of legal ownership was raised much after the building was constructed (actually, the first time someone claimed to "own" Notre Dame may have been in the early 20th century, when the French government passed a law appropriating historic churches, while letting the Catholic Church retain them as places of cult).

In other words, the US don't have to face such issues, therefore the "US perspective" can be discounted as irrelevant.